Re: Personalisation semantics - naming

I like these changes. We did start with the aria prefex but we got kickback becuse the aria prefex could  have bloat and  devlopers will be put off.

can you think of another prefex? such as ariap for aria persolization 

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:24:08 +0300 Alastair Campbell<acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote ---- 

      Hi,
  
 I’m commenting on the spec at https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/
  
 I have a few comments, but the main one is around the name of the attributes, the “coga-“ approach.
  
 It appears many of these attributes would be useful to others (with keyboard short cuts for example), can we use one attribute type for all things accessibility?
 
 If "aria-" were used instead of “coga-“ then ARIA is no-longer just a screen-reader thing (hooray!). If everything is aria- or role=, then developers won't be dividing up audiences in their mind, they are just applying general accessibility meta-data.
 
 The less we can sub-divide the accessibility audiences, and the clearer the solutions are, the better traction it will get.
  
 Working that through for the various attributes:
 
 
 -          How about “aria-context” instead of “coga-action”?
 -          aria-destination instead of coga-destination.
 -          coga-field appears to cross over a lot with HTML5 input types, can it align with those?
 -          aria-input instead of coga-field.
 -          coga-context, seems easily confused by name, could it be aria-profile instead?
 -          aria-icon instead of coga-concept.
 -          coga-numberfree seems like it could be more generalizable, it is akin to the abbr element. How about aria-explained?
 -          Could coga-literal also go under aria-explained? 
 -          coga-feedback feels very similar to aria-live in concept, but I can see the different audience requirement. 
 How about aria-feedback?
 
 
 That’s just some ideas, but I also think it would help to include the attributes other audiences have (e.g. low vision, mobility), and come up with a more generalised categorisation.
  
 I’m sure the AG working group’s low vision task force would be able to help with that (which I’m on), are there other groups that should be involved consulted?
  
 Kind regards,
  
 -Alastair
  
 -- 
  
 www.nomensa.com / @alastc